DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE TUESDAY, 7TH MARCH 2017, 6.30 PM COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, CHORLEY I am now able to enclose, for consideration at the above meeting of the Development Control Committee, the following reports that were unavailable when the agenda was published. Agenda No Item A 16/00926/FULMAJ - BRINSCALL MILL ROAD, WHEELTON (Pages 27 - 44) B 16/00633/OUTMAJ - GLEADHILL HOUSE STUD, GLEADHILL (Pages 45 - 60) HOUSE, DAWBERS LANE, EUXTON E 16/00510/OUTMAJ - CHARTER LANE, CHARNOCK RICHARD (Pages 61 - 78) F 17/00038/FULMAJ - CHORLEY RUGBY UNION CLUB, (Pages 79 - 82) CHANCERY ROAD, ASTLEY VILLAGE, CHORLEY, PR7 1XP 4 APPEALS AND OTHER DECISIONS (Pages 83 - 104) Report of the Director (Customer and Digital) enclosed. GARY HALL CHIEF EXECUTIVE Electronic agendas sent to Members of the Development Control Committee If you need this information in a different format, such as larger print or translation, please get in touch on 515151 or chorley.gov.uk Meeting contact Nina Neisser on 01257 515118 or email [email protected] This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Page 27 Agenda Item 3a APPLICATION REPORT – 16/00926/FULMAJ Validation Date: 31 October 2016 Ward: Pennine Type of Application: Major Full Planning Proposal: Rehabilitation centre, comprising pool complex, gym and therapy building, seventeen accommodation cabins, car park, access road, running (sprint) track and associated plant. Location: Land 100M East Of Wheelton House Brinscall Mill Road Wheelton Case Officer: Mrs Helen Lowe Applicant: Ms Ann Nikolakis Agent: John Welbank Consultation expiry: 1 December 2016 Decision due by: 10 February 2017 _______________________________________________________________________________________ Members will recall that determination of this application was deferred at the previous DC Committee to allow a site visit to take place. The applicant has provided additional information to support the application which is summarised below. The original report, and addendum to that report then follow. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT The applicant has provided a very detailed response to the committee report which is summarised below: Planning policy: The applicant comments that the main issue seems to be prioritisation of Local Plan policy BNE2 above the Core strategy plus the Rural Development SPD. Within the Core Strategy, ‘Policy 1: Locating Growth’ there is the allowance for exceptional circumstances. The applicant notes that the committee report accepts that there are no sequentially preferable sites and that there is unlikely to be any impact on existing town centre facilities. On this basis the applicant suggests that the requirements of the Rural Development SPD have been met. The applicant considers that an urban or even urban fringe environment will simply not provide the functional requirements for the business. Landscape Impact Assessment : The applicant states that the simple reason that an assessment was not undertaken is because it wasn’t requested following the pre application enquiry and they were only asked for some landscape artists impressions which were provided. They state that the first time they were aware about this when they read the committee report. Ecology and trees: The applicant still rejects the reference to ‘sites of high ecological value’ and contends that there is no detail on what was being suggested. They feel that generally poor ecological advice has been provided that is not backed up with any evidence. With regard to trees, they are happy to increase tree planting and work with the tree officer to come up with an Agenda Page 28 Agenda Item 3a acceptable mitigation strategy and suggest that this could include some additional habitat creation but without knowing what this needs to be its difficult for them to assess. Around 140 ‘low value’ trees would be removed. They applicant has confirmed that they would be happy to plant an additional 500 elsewhere. Suggested species could include oak, alder and birch. They have confirmed that they would be happy for a condition to be applied to produce a tree mitigation plan that was acceptable to the tree officer. Highways: The applicant considers that there are lots of highway issues that they don’t agree with including policy, local roads etc. Again they would be happy to relook at design providing they are reasonable and only involved the applicant’s land – suggestions are made in the response and the applicant considers that this could be subject to an agreeable condition. The applicant contends that comments made by the Highways Department ignore national planning guidance with regard to rural developments The supplied Transport Statement and Green Travel Plan included detailed sections on pedestrian, cycle, public transport options and highway accident. It provided estimates for access and trip generation and a Transport Management Plan identifying percentage of patients and staff using the various forms of transport to and from the site along with timings. The Green Travel Plan detailed how the site would provide its own minibus service for both staff and patients, how this service would be encouraged and marketed and the monitoring processes that would be put in place so that the service can be improved over time. On this basis the applicant suggests that the Transport Statement should be more than sufficient information for an assessment to be made. RESPONSE The following consultees have responded to the additional information that has been provided: LCC Highways: The highway authority uses thresholds based on size or scale of land use to determine whether or not a development proposal should be accompanied by a Transport Assessment or a Transport Statement. As a guide, for the proposed use class, any development in excess of 1500M2 must be accompanied by a Transport Assessment (TA) and a Travel Plan. The scale of the current proposal is 4203m2 which is far in excess of the guide threshold, yet in the further information provided; the applicant seems insistent that, the Transport Statement (TS) which accompanied the application submission was sufficient and should be accepted. However, as explained in the highways response, the TS is a simplified version of the required TA which would have provided a more comprehensive and systematic process setting out the transport issues of the development. If the TA had been submitted, it would have helped identify the measures to be taken to deal with the anticipated transport impacts of the development and also measures to be taken to improve accessibility of the site by walking, cycling and use of public transport. By failing to submit a TA, the transport issues have not been fully appraised and suitable mitigation measures have not been identified. As explained, the applicant appears not to have given consideration to whether or not a safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people as the NPPF requires of large developments as proposed. In the further information submitted, the applicant appears to assume that the site would always be accessed via Chapel Lane and as such, did not see the need for an assessment to be made of Tithebarn Lane, which seems inappropriate. The applicant did not carry out any assessment of the junction of the A674 Blackburn New Road and Chapel Lane to see how the proposed development would impact the junction. To reiterate, the NPPF requires developments that generate significant movements to be located where there would be little need to travel and where use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised, including public transport use. As pointed out, the site is located in an area of low accessibility. The only two roads in the area have no footways and no improvements are proposed to the public rights of way and the only proposed cycle route in the area for improved accessibility of the site. It is noted that the applicant proposes improvements to the access for Agenda Page 29 Agenda Item 3a better visibility and two passing places along the site access. While these measures are welcomed, they are not considered adequate for improved accessibility of the site. The applicant has therefore not sufficiently exploited opportunities for use of sustainable transport modes and that the cumulative highway impacts have not been appropriately quantified and assessed. It is therefore recommended that approval of the application be resisted. GMEU have commented that they do not have anything further to add to their previous comments as no new information has been provided. As previously stated the mitigation put forward for the impact of the proposal is limited and overall there appears to be no compensation for the loss of the habitats present. OTHER MATTERS The HSE have commented that it has been identified that the swimming pool and gym are of vulnerable construction. Part of these structures fall within the vulnerable building safeguarding zone. The HSE are, therefore, reviewing the justification of the safeguarding zones and will provide a full response in due course. Comments are awaited from the Council’s Parks and Open Spaces Officer (a qualified Landscape architect) and will be reported on the addendum. Conclusion On the basis of the above, it is still considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not give rise to any undue harm to highway safety or give rise to harmful ecological impacts. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide supporting information and appropriate mitigative measures, not to rely upon these to be provided by the consultees as they appear to suggest in the additional information that has been submitted since the last Committee meeting . In summary, the it is still considered that the proposal is not appropriate in an area of other open countryside. No further information to demonstrate the need for the facility has been provided, such as information from Salford University, that it is stated the applicant is working with.